You misrepresent me in a couple of ways,
@ajqtrz
I have not advocated for a higher speed limit, nor have I advocated that people should be allowed to drive faster. I have repeatedly said it's not my, or your, or anyone else's role to block the passing lane to slow them down. I feel I am safest if those who want to drive faster than me are able to do so without having to tailgate or get angry at other drivers. In this matter, I am somewhat of a libertarian. I don't feel any responsibility toward setting the driving-speed of my fellow citizens, and I resent that the government has repeatedly used false arguments to justify it. I think the primary goal is to raise income via fines, and if they came out and said that, I would happily cheer them on for every ticket they wrote.
I apologize if I miss represented your position. Hopefully I'll get it right now.
Here's what I hear you saying:
1) There should be no speed limit, at least in the "fast lane."
2) So you don't wish to allow anybody to "block" (i.e. impede) traffic in the passing lane.
3) you believe it's safer to get out of their way lest they tailgate or get angry?
4) You don't believe anybody should have the responsibility to set the driving speeds.
5) You believe the government is using false arguments to justify their policing of speeds.
6) You believe the government is doing this to increase their revenues.
The last point is, in my opinion, a bit off topic so I'll not address it, but I would love to see some information on this.
As for the other four. Here goes.
1) The idea of no speed limit or even a "faster speed limit" has been tried numerous times and numerous places. In every case the speed limit has been reintroduced when traffic patterns change and it becomes necessary to keep the speedsters from harming the non-speedsters. The only way to effectively allow people to drive at whatever speed they wish is to have each person build their own personal freeway -- a bit expensive I'd think. Thus, we must share the road. Part of sharing is restricting yourself in some way so that others might enjoy the road as much as you. And do so in safety. The road does not belong to anybody in particular but everybody must give up something to share it. The speedster does not wish to do that and thus they push for "no-speed" limit. But even when they get that it's often changed because they miss judge their own ability to drive at the speed they desire. And when a person does that and loses control somebody gets hurt. Most "no-speed" limit advocates want to claim that nobody but the driver who gets hurt, gets hurt, but then most of them have never had to deal with the trauma of the family, friends and the cost of repairing the roadway, clearing the debris, carting off the body, investigating the crash....etc. In other words people don't live in a vacuum and what you do does effect others to their detriment. This potential cost is true even if you only allow one lane to go fast, or even faster. Variable speed lanes have also been tried with the same results. No matter how you cut it, mixing speeds on the freeway is a recipe for more accidents and then adding higher speeds, more serious accidents. No driver drives alone. we all take our families and friends with us.
2 - 3) Impeding traffic is a personal choice if you drive the speed limit. You may or may not "get over" but if you do you are actually increasing your chance of an accident -- very slightly -- because you are changing lanes verses staying in the same lane and moving at the same speed. The fact that the speeder wants to tailgate or gets angry is not in keeping up with libertarian principles since he or she would be needlessly "enforcing" their desires upon you. The numbers for maintaining your speed or changing lanes are about the same as far as accident rates...a slight increase in both situations. But the severity of injury when changing lanes or speeding up increases since the number of vehicles involved in an accident increases slightly when the accident includes a lane change. Over all it's pretty much a wash in spite of how you feel about the matter.
4) Since the roads are shared and nobody should take the responsibility for setting the speeds, how do you propose to keep the speedy one from causing an accident where the less speedy one is hurt? Mixed speeds kill. Mixed speeds are the reason for accidents. If you don't have speed limits you are relying upon the judgement of the drivers and frankly, that shaky ground upon which to rest your hopes of getting home in one piece.
5) I agree that the 55mph saves gas argument was probably politically driven and my not have been true. But the rest I'm not so sure of. For the government to pull the wool over our eyes on the speed limit there would have to be hundreds of organizations in on it. States, federal, county governments, police forces and safety administrations, insurance companies and all that, would all have to conspire to have the numbers say pretty much the same thing across the world. Not sure if you are a conspiracy theorist or not, but it sounds unlikely to me.
My perception of the problem in our communications is that you keep thinking I care about going faster, when I don't. I just don't want random citizens thinking that they are in the right when they occupy the passing lane while not going as fast as a large portion of the population wants to go. If the passing lane is clear, it's less likely that someone will follow me too close for safety. I happen to feel that is a bigger danger to my family than people who go faster than the speed limit. The speed limit, and the legality, and the morality of these things is secondary to my desire to be safer. Nothing we do happens in a vacuum. One person's decision affects the mode and responsiveness of other drivers. When "controller" types are smug about their "obeying the law" that has the side effect of forcing other drivers to drive slower than they want, they are needlessly exacerbating a dangerous situation and I think it is a poor justification for exerting power over other people.
To sum up my position:
It is not your or my business to decide if someone else has a reason for the speed they are traveling. The argument that people are justified in blocking a lane that might be needed to save the life of someone because they are doing the speed limit is easily as self-centered, and potentially as dangerous to my life, as is the decision by others to speed.
The large portion of the population varies quite a bit. And I can see your point that some random citizen thinks "they are in the right when the occupy the passing lane." And I would agree with you if it were treated as a passing lane by the "large proportion of the population" who want to go. But here's the thing, there is no reason for the person in the "passing lane" to be passing anyone if they are doing the speed limit. By being in the passing land at the speed limit the "impeder" is actually slowing down the speeder and making everybody safer. More to the point, if I, as the "impeder" want to do that, what is it to you? I"m keeping the guy off your tail aren't I? You want to be safer keep people from speeding and make them all do the speed limit. The state of Pennsylvania did this a number of years ago and "escorted" cars through the downtown rush hour traffic at the speed limit. There were, for the time it was done, no deaths and no serious accidents on the freeway. They simply lined up the cop cars, one to a lane, and traveled the speed limit through the target area. It worked! The only reason they stopped is the speeders couldn't stand it and threatened all kinds of political mayhem because somebody was impeding their right to drive however fast they wished in the "passing lane." They weren't treating it as a passing lane at all, but a "go as fast as I want" lane with the consequences that people were dying.
By the reasoning that I might be blocking a lane needed to save a life, you are right. I might be. But I also know, from the Pennsylvania State Patrol experiment, I am probably more likely to be saving a life by slowing the speedster to the designated speed limit. Is it self-centered? Hmmm...might be. I might like the idea of saving lives. I might like the idea of doing something to increase the safety of others. If I had to guess you don't really think that a person driving over the speed limit 20mph is actually concerned much about his or her possible impact upon others? AND if you think that by not slowing him down you will reduce accidents I suspect the numbers won’t support your view.
But I very much agree that there are, as you can imagine, a lot of people out there who are in the “fast lane” slowing traffic because they want to feel superior to other drivers. But of course, "it not your or my business to decide if someone else has a reason for" impeding traffic -- which is exactly what you do when you suggest they are being self centered, isn't it? But even if their motives are not pure, what are the results? Probably slightly lower accident rates and certainly lower accident severity. I’ll take the increased safety and let the powers above sort out their hearts. Where we disagree is in the results. You want to claim that the numbers will say that person driving the speed limit in the fast lane will cause greater harm by not getting over, and I want to say he is not harming more if he stays than getting over and may be helping. I've got some numbers, though they are not as convincing as I'd like them to be. Do you have some measures on the subject?
AJ
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
)
